Really, well then you dont know the people in my Squadronthen. We have Lt Cols and Maj's that are just interested inhelping kids. Our Dep for Senor is a Lt Col. Just completed NSC and his only interest is flying orientation flights and getting our cadet program backontrack. I cant blame hiim for not wantig to tromp around the woods. He's 70 somethingyears old. He did his time inthe USAF flying C-130's inthe 60's . He just wants to give backto his community like the rest of us.

Quote from: Chappie on January 19, 2007, 04:23:24 AM

Quote from: DogCollar on January 18, 2007, 08:32:42 PM
(2) I enjoy, and only have the time, to work at the squadron level...I don't need to be trained to become Wing Chaplain, because in my present reality I'm not going to ever become Wing Chaplain.  

Bill,

There is present reality and there is CAP reality    Wing Chaplains are limited to a 6 year term.  That means a Wing Chaplain will often serve at least 2 Wing Commanders.  It can be one full term of a Wing CC and 1/2 with the other...or 1/2 term with one and 1/2 term with another.  Since Wing Commanders can select their own Wing Chaplain, an incumbant Wing Chaplain can be relieved from duty without prejudice.

In the VAWG Chaplain Service, there are currently 12 chaplains serving:
1st Lt (3) - each at Level 1; Capt (3) - each at Level 1; Maj (3) - each at Level 1; Lt Col (3) - 1 at Level 1, 1 at Level 2, 1 at Level 4.   In other words 10 out 12 chaplains have not pursued their Professional Development beyond Level 1.

In the CAWG Chaplain Service, there are currently 28 chaplains: 1st Lt (2) - each at Level 1; Capt (11) - 10 at Level 1, 1 at Level 3; Maj (7) - 4 at Level 4, 1 at Level 3, 2 at Level 4; Lt Col ( 8 ) - 4 at Level 4, 2 at Level 3, 2 at Level 5).

The following stats were shared at the 2005 CAWG Chaplain Services Conference in a briefing prepared by Chaplain (Col.) Charles Sharp, Chief of CAP Chaplain Services: Chaplain Sharp shared in his briefing concerning the Levels of Training in the CAP Chaplain Services: 659 total chaplains: 593 - Level 1; 10 - Level 2; 15 - Level 3; 26 - Level 4; 15 - Level 5.  Nearly 90% of the Chaplains had not progressed past Level 1.

There is a general "rule of thumb" that Wing Chaplains should attain at least Level 4 and those serving on the Chaplain Service Advisory Council (CSAC: Chief, Dep. Chief, Secretary - National Chaplain Service Staff and the 8 Region Chaplains) should have attained Level 5.

The questions raised in light of the high percentage of the CAP Chaplain Service not pursuing their professional development should be:
--- where are going find Chaplains to serve in senior levels of leadership?
--- do we have Chaplains prepared to take on senior levels of leadership?
--- if we do not have adequate numbers of Chaplains trained to assume these responsibilities, what is the future of the CAP Chaplain Service?

Let me tell you that no Chaplain who has a sincere desire to serve as a CAP Chaplain, came in with the aspirations of one day becoming a Wing or Region Chaplain or on the National CAP Chaplain Service Staff.  If so, then his/her motives are wrong.  However, it is not wrong for a Chaplain to desire to pursue their professional development that if and when an opportunity to serve in one of those capacities, they would be prepared to take on those responsibilities.  

It is not beyond the realm of possibility -- there is a pattern that is repeated time after time.  Your current squadron commander can one day become a Wing or Region Commander or even a National Commander.  If you have served faithfully and with distinction....and that commander has trust in you and your abilities, who do you think will get tapped on the shoulder to serve on the Commander's staff?  A few years ago, the National Chief of the CAP Chaplain service was a chaplain who began his career like you and I -- a squadron chaplain.  As his squadron commander was promoted to higher levels of responsibility (Group/Wing/Region and yes, National), he was asked to serve at that Level.  Not saying that scenario is right or wrong --- but it happens.   But as the Chaplain went on to the next level -- he had either met or pursued the training required to perform at that Level.  

Just food for thought.

Believe me, I understand the dilemma of trying to find upper echelon leadership!  It is a problem in almost every institution, not just CAP.  Those who aspire to leadership in my denomination are usually the ones who shouldn't be there, and thankfully aren't usually the ones who wind up in those positions.  A good healthy dose of reluctance is often a good sign for leaders!

Now, that being said, I have not only an abundance of reluctance, but I also face a time crunch that is real and getting worse.  My calling is as a hospital chaplain, which means that I am on-call every week night (I do have weekends off--thanks to a staff of on-call for emergencies only clergy).  I have gotten paged out of CAP meetings to care for a crisis at the hospital.  On top of that I am working on my doctor of ministry degree, I am the state education chair for the Association of Professional Chaplains, on the leadership council for the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, I am involved in my local congregation teaching and working on various committees, I work within my denomination on various committees.  At home, I have a 14 year old son in all his hormonal glory that requires a lot of attention, and an 81 year old father with various sundry health issues, who lives with us.  My wife is also heavily involved in not only her work, but several church oriented things as well...we've been married for 24 years and occasionally like to see each other.

I am involved with CAP, because I enjoy it, I believe in it's missions, and because volunteering my skills and what time I can is the right thing to do.  I have done Level II chaplain PD.  I have also done some of the ES courses in trying to achieve a rating to be a mission chaplain.  However, if it takes me 5 years to get it...it takes me five years!

I will say again, I could care less what rank or grade I have...I will try not to dishonor those who have achieved military rank by serving in the Armed Forces by pretending to be something I am not...I will continue to do my best not to look sloppy in my uniform...btw, I meet AF weight and grooming standards to wear the AF style uniforms. 

So, the question remains...quality or desire?  Maybe another way of putting it is that life reality has a way of refocusing one away from the ambitious to what is possible.

I have to back flyguy06 on this one.  We are a volunteer organization.  We ask people to participate, we have no authority to "tell" them to do anything.  We need to quit comparing ourselves to the military.  A military officer may be trained in one area such as MP and be asked to do something else, such as engineering.  Of course, the military officer is being paid to do what he is told and is under a different directive from Congress than we are.  They also get a lot more benefits than our members do.  Now, we have three missions.  No where do the requirements say that a person has to do more than any one of them.  A good aerospace education officer that is not interested in ES is still a great asset to CAP.  Maybe even better than a hot shot ES guy that tromps around the woods playing Rambo twice a year.  The ES officer is teaching and shaping cadets at least once a month and working on numerous projects in and out of the squadron constantly.  Does he still have time to obtain and maintain his ground team qualifications?  Maybe?  Maybe not.  What is the benefit to him?  Give up more time away from his real family?  Spend more family money to procure 24-72 hour packs?  Let's quit comparing CAP to the real military and let's try to remember that there are 3 distinct and different and very important missions in CAP and certain people enjoy certain activities and others don't, yet we all fill very equally important positions and let's quit trying to redefine this program as a mini military marine NCO school of special ops.  When I was younger I enjoyed ES, as I have gotten older and can no longer tromp the woods, I enjoy the cadets and working with them.  Thank God for all of the opportunities to continue to serve.  JMHO.

I agree with a lot of your points.

The reason we keep comparing ourselves to the military is because well, we kinda LOOK like the military.

If we didn't use military grade insignia, a lot of these comparisons would go away.

Specifically, though, what John K is trying to do is create a core of high level leaders - guys who would run CAP.  And it does make sense, regardless of what grade system is used, to ensure those leaders have a fair amount of knowledge and ability in CAP's missions.  A lot more than the powerpoint level.

And yeah, that means some folks won't ever get to that level.


But here's the rub


I think the average CAP member has no problem being told that he is unsuited for staff or command positions above squadron.

But that same guy is very upset to be told he is unsuited for promotion through the ranks.

How to get past this?

I agree with your analysis and I don't see a problem with it.  The way the system is now, a very good dedicated aerospace education officer that has never done ES can still make Lt. Col.  I don't see  a problem with that.  As far as command, that is a little trickier.  As a composite squadron commander, I need to attempt to maintain both a good cadet program and good senior program.   This requires some experience in both, or at least the intelligence to be able to read and understand the program Reg's and have enough sense to surround one's self with good people.  I do not see any need to tie promotions into command or vice versa.  Fortunately, I "worked" my way through the ranks and was able to acquire a lot of great experience over the years.  I do not see a problem with professionals starting off at a higher grade as they bring "more" to the table.  I would not have wanted to trade positions with the Group Chaplain when he went to two cadet's homes in Florida to tell their parents that there had been an accident during their orientation flight and they wouldn't be coming home anymore.  I also wouldn't want to be the squadron or wing legal officer and get the call at home on Saturday from a squadron commander about what should he do about two cadets that may have been doing something inappropriate and should the local police be involved.  Most of these professional areas require a certain amount of risk to the professionals based upon their personal interpretation of areas outside our Reg's.  An EMT/medial officer on a training misson is asked to treat a cadet that is feeling overheated.  It's his call whether the cadet is in heat exhaustion or heat stroke.  Our Reg's don't help with that and on top of it, our Reg's may direct him to do as little as possible.  So, in the overall I have no problem with promoting personnel based upon their training track and I don't think command experience should required.  What should be required is that Group and Wing Commanders should look at the experience one brings to the plate when applying for a command position.  If they would do their jobs, we wouldn't have to worry about inexperienced 1Lt. Upjohn being a commander of a squadron.  We don't need to worry about the promotion program as much as we do the way command positions are handed out.   I hope I haven't digressed too much.

I'd argue that it's not about how command positions are "handed out."

It's more that we can't get the best candidates into those jobs in the first place.

Because you can get all the rewards of the program, including rank, WITHOUT doing the tough jobs. 

So we end up giving inexperienced 1st Lt Upjohn the job because no one more capable wants it.

And I might argue that if someone would take the "tough" jobs for the rank, they may be in it for the "bling" and not all of the "right reasons".  Let's face it, considering the lack of pay, benefits and retirement, why would anyone want to do anything in CAP?  I contend that it is for a desire of fellowship of people with like interests, a smattering of patriotism, a touch of pride, a sense of belonging, a desire to give back to the greatest country in the world, and a small hope to have mattered when it is all said and done.  As a commander, I have learned to look for the quality of an individual instead of the rank of an individual when the time comes to get the job done.  Believe it or not, there are some lazy, no account, Lt. Col's. in the real Air Force/Military also.  OTS/OCS/ROTC does not wean out all of the loser's, every class has a bottom quarter and every promotion list has a bottom quarter also, so not all officer's are the cream of the crop, but there are some good ones once in a while (Gen. Schwartzkopf) and we also get some good ones in CAP.  One thing I have noticed is that not all prior service military officers are good CAP officers.   I think some may not know the CAP program, but think that since they are prior service, CAP is secondary to them.  While similar in many ways, they still need to learn CAP Reg's and conduct themselves and the program accordingly.

Quote from: capchiro on January 19, 2007, 02:43:49 PM
And I might argue that if someone would take the "tough" jobs for the rank, they may be in it for the "bling" and not all of the "right reasons".  Let's face it, considering the lack of pay, benefits and retirement, why would anyone want to do anything in CAP?  I contend that it is for a desire of fellowship of people with like interests, a smattering of patriotism, a touch of pride, a sense of belonging, a desire to give back to the greatest country in the world, and a small hope to have mattered when it is all said and done. 

But that's how we got inexperienced 1st Lt Upjohn as a commander in the first place - he was the only guy who wanted the job (probably for the reasons you state above).  But still, it's not like we turned down 10 worthier candidates to give it to him.

If we don't somehow make the job more attractive to experienced CAP Officer Smith, he will continue to do what he does right now - not take it, and leave it to Upjohn.  Which leaves us right where we are today.

Quote from: Dragoon on January 19, 2007, 02:18:03 PM
I'd argue that it's not about how command positions are "handed out."

It's more that we can't get the best candidates into those jobs in the first place.

Because you can get all the rewards of the program, including rank, WITHOUT doing the tough jobs. 

So we end up giving inexperienced 1st Lt Upjohn the job because no one more capable wants it.

I think you would still have the problem of filling the jobs.  If promotions were restricted to only those who have filled the "tough" jobs, you would get some people filling the jobs just so they can get the rank, not necessarily the best people, just the ones wanting more bling.

It's compounded by the fact that there are no benefits from getting a higher grade, like pay increases.  Since everyone is an unpaid volunteer, he will want to work where it is most convenient and where he feels he can contribute the most.  For most people, that means working at the squadron level, where all the real tasks take place, not the higher levels, which are really administrative/coordination type slots.

The way to get quality people taking command positions is to require higher standards for the job.  Of course, this still doesn't solve how to entice people to take those jobs.  Most people, being volunteers, would rather contribute at the squadron a few miles away than to work at wing which is much farther.  How do you get them to go to wing?  They won't get paid any more.  The squadron member can say they go out on search missions or help train cadets.  The wing member can say they process paperwork, go over reports, and help establish policy.  Which one sounds more rewarding?

Quote from: davedove on January 19, 2007, 02:50:02 PM
I think you would still have the problem of filling the jobs.  If promotions were restricted to only those who have filled the "tough" jobs, you would get some people filling the jobs just so they can get the rank, not necessarily the best people, just the ones wanting more bling.

Well, not neccesarily.  You'd certainly have bling hunters WANTING the jobs, but you still get to pick the best one.  And maybe you'd be choosing from among 10 eager candidates who want a promotion, instead of the one guy who kinda sucks, but at least he's willing to do it.

It's kind of like saying we should pay generals the same as privates, or Fire Chiefs the same as firemen, because you should want the job out of a sense of duty, not for more pay. 

But that ain't how the world works.  If a job is tough, and requires talent, you have to provide incentives.  Rank would be one possible incentive.  Because in CAP,  "bling" is one way we "pay" our people.

Unless we can fix this problem and get more quality people to volunteer for tough jobs like Wing Director of Logistics, we will be stuck with mediocre support from our higher echelons.

Quote from: davedove on January 19, 2007, 02:50:02 PM
The way to get quality people taking command positions is to require higher standards for the job.  Of course, this still doesn't solve how to entice people to take those jobs.  Most people, being volunteers, would rather contribute at the squadron a few miles away than to work at wing which is much farther.  How do you get them to go to wing?  They won't get paid any more.  The squadron member can say they go out on search missions or help train cadets.  The wing member can say they process paperwork, go over reports, and help establish policy.  Which one sounds more rewarding?

Exactly - you've hit on the problem.  How can we reward quality folks for doing the tough jobs no one wants to do, or the jobs that require particular talents, when there are so many other fun jobs that you can do?

I have no problem getting squadron level cadet programs officers.  I have BIG troubles getting a good Wing level finance officer.  We're gonna have to offer something with that job if we want a good guy to take it.....

Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 19, 2007, 05:58:20 AM

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 19, 2007, 04:20:52 AM
wait a minute. so you mean to tell me that I have been in CAP since I was 15 years old, I am a pilot. I work with cadets in my community and have been to three encampments, a national cadet special activity, numerous wing conferences, completed SLS, CLS, ECI 13, given speeches to youth groups about CAP, recruited 30 cadets for CAP. Future orientation pilot, future check pilot and subject matter expert on CAP in my squadron.

and because I have no interest in ES, I should be put out of the organization anf given a patron membership? I dont think so.

Put out?? Certainly not!

Limited in how high up the food chain you could go (in terms both of rank and responsibility)....yeah, I'm afraid so....and you might be satisfied with that, i don't know.

I don't envision 'single interest' members going beyond captain at squadron staff officer level

That's exactly right.  

Someone's been a member since they were a cadet at age 15, so?  What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?  

I have no real interest in model rocketry but I teach it as enthusiastically as possible anyway.  Why?  Because it's not about me or what I want.  It's about serving (service before self).  In this case, serving the cadets needs.  

The point is, there are a lot of roles to fill.  A member may not have a particular interest in doing something but they most definitely should be willing to assist with any of the 3 missions as needed.   If not, progression should be limited (ex., I would not expect this person to ever command and rank limited to company grades).  And if a squadron is large enough to allow members to focus on one particular mission, then great, but it should not be done to the exclusion of the other missions. 

The fact that we are volunteers is rather irrelevant.  No one is forced to join.  We're all members as a result of our own volition.  That doesn't mean the organization doesn't have standards/expectations for it's membership.   It's not a "military" v. "civilian" thing either.  It's an organizational thing and the expectation should be clearly stated up front.  We should not simply be "Come And Pay", we should be "Come And Participate".

Why is it when someone says ES, everyone immediately jumps to the Ground Team stuff.  You guys should know that ES is not limited to flying, tromping around in the woods, and 2:00 a.m. ELT Hunts. 

Most Wings have a shortage of people who are Mission Base Staff qualified.  Right now, I am trying to get all of my Squadron's Officers to become at least Mission Staff Assistants, so they can help out at the Mission Base. 

There are also: Liason Officer, Information Officer, Mission Chaplain, Mission Radio Operator, Mission Safety Officer, Communication Unit Leader, Finance & Admin Section Chief and Logistics Section Chiefs positions. They are all a part of ES.  These are all important ES jobs that have to be done and you can qualify for them and never leave the comfort of the air conditioning. 

That's a very good point.  The folks who don't do ES at all may not understand all the things you can do.

Whenever we have a big mission, there are always a lot of folks who want to help, but never got the basic qualifications that would let them help.

And yeah, on long missions especially, MSAs help a lot.  Without ever leaving mission base.

Send them to the FEMA website (http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/crslist.asp) and get ICS 100 & 200 done online.  They only take 2-3 hours each, and then they can start training for all of those positions.

There's also Flight Line Marshallers and Supervisors, who while outside, also stay at mission base.

It seems to me that CAP is going to have to come to terms with the same reality that every other volunteer organization needs to understand.  Namely, that those with the time to devote to the more "time consuming" tasks are going to be retired, or not working full-time!  Look at every other volunteer organization in the community and you will see that those who put in the most time and doing the time intensive projects are usually 65 or older (I know this personally as I am also the Director of Volunteer Services for my hospital).

If you work full-time (and most full-time employees are working way more than 40 hours a week!!!!), have a family, and are moderately involved in other activities, then two to three hours a week devoted to CAP is all that can and should be expected!  Anything more than that, including professional development training etc..., is gravy and should be appreciated and respected!  Those who want to bust the chops of those who ONLY come to the meetings and ONLY do their assigned tasks need to back WAY off!!

As to the FEMA training...CAP needs to change this reqirement...because ICS 100 and 200 are likely to be phased out.  ICS 700 (which I have done) is the one that will be compliant with the NIMS regulations. 

Quote from: DogCollar on January 19, 2007, 03:36:07 PM
Those who want to bust the chops of those who ONLY come to the meetings and ONLY do their assigned tasks need to back WAY off!!

Or, on the flip side, those that ONLY come to meetings and ONLY do their assigned tasks need to understand that their progession in the organization may be limited.  There is nothing wrong with that. 

Somehow we have drifted from the topic, but I want to add my two cents to this latest development, regarding mission qualifications.  With my years of experience, I have been mission qualified many times in many roles from radio operator, to ground team leader, to mission observer with the radiological monitoring patch (with instructor credentials).  I am now current with MSA.  Becoming qualified in any ES is very time consuming and frustrating.  Sometimes not all tasks are offered to become fully certified when needed.  The second problem is staying qualified.  With the relatively few ES calls our Wing gets, and the relative few ES people actually needed, along with real life happening, it is relatively hard to work two missions every two years as needed.  Truthfully, unless that is your forte, I wouldn't recommend it.  There appears to be a small core of individuals that work almost all ES missions and they are not always open to "newbies".   That is not a slam, it is reality.  Most individuals don't have enough time to do a "good" job on their main role in CAP (whatever that may be) to add another job to their list.  Another thing, ES is not something that is conducive to part-time warriors.  It's hard to be good at more than one thing, so if ES floats your boat go for it.  If aerospace is where it's at, go for it.  We have room and work for all.

You are making my point.  There are some ES qualifications that are easy to do and require minimal training, but can have a big impact.  I understand that many people don't have the time to "get involved" with ES, but if they get the Mission Staff Assistant qual, then when a big event happens and they "want to help" and have the time, they won't be turned away at the door becuse they aren't qualified and no one has time to sit down and do their qualifications with them right then. 

MSA's can be invaluable even if they can only help out for an hour or two.  Giving the board keepers a break to go to lunch, making copies and sorting paperwork, answering the telephones, preparing document packages for briefings, running messages around Mission Base, all of these things eat up the time of the people who are tasked with running the mission, and anyone who can help make those jobs easier is welcome.

Quote from: capchiro on January 19, 2007, 01:43:14 PM
  What should be required is that Group and Wing Commanders should look at the experience one brings to the plate when applying for a command position.  If they would do their jobs, we wouldn't have to worry about inexperienced 1Lt. Upjohn being a commander of a squadron.  We don't need to worry about the promotion program as much as we do the way command positions are handed out.   I hope I haven't digressed too much.

This is indeed a problem.....one root cause is that individuals with little or no experience themselves are being handed groups and even wings to command by "buddies" further up the food chain.....which may make them feel good, but is a tremendous disservice to CAP.

Quote from: A.Member on January 19, 2007, 03:42:35 PM

Quote from: DogCollar on January 19, 2007, 03:36:07 PM
Those who want to bust the chops of those who ONLY come to the meetings and ONLY do their assigned tasks need to back WAY off!!

Or, on the flip side, those that ONLY come to meetings and ONLY do their assigned tasks need to understand that their progession in the organization may be limited.  There is nothing wrong with that. 

So true.  We wouldn't even be having this discussion if rank wasn't involved.

I decide to become president of the local chapter of my organization for year.  So I get to call myself president.

Next year, I'm busy with work and family, so I just become a member.  I don't call myself president anymore.  Perhaps for the big dinner I wear my "ex president" nametag or something.

Next year, I decide to accept an appointment as a Regional Director.  So  now I have THAT title for a while.  And then, like all titles, I give it back.

No one argues.

No one says "every member deserves to be Chapter President".  Because truthfully, most don't WANT to be.  They just want to work at the local level.

The problem, it seems, is grade.  Everyone wants it.  Everyone thinks everyone deserves it.  Which, of course, makes it meaningless.

 If it was tied to position (and temporary), then only the guys who want to be in charge would want it .  Everyone else would be happy to avoid it and just be contributing members at the local level.